Standing Committee F

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Drugs Bill

Clause 5 - X-rays and ultrasound scans: England and Wales

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 41, in clause 5, page 5, line 42, at end insert— 
'(d) a purpose built facility for carrying out searches authorised under this legislation'.—[Mrs. Gillan.] 
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Cheryl Gillan: Welcome to our proceedings this afternoon, Mr. Gale.
When we broke, I was responding to the Minister's response to the amendment. What really worries me is the lack of detail. I wholeheartedly support the Minister in what she is trying to achieve but would have liked some of the financial tests to be available to the Committee, not least when it comes to access to hospitals, general practice surgeries and the other medical premises included in the Bill. We are talking not about accident and emergency provisions but about a procedure that is to be initiated at the request of a police officer. The officer may request a general practitioner or a hospital's accident and emergency department to carry out tests on behalf of the police, and, indeed, to interpret those tests on behalf of the police and transmit the results to them. It follows that the national health service or private medical facility that provides those services will face a cost. 
The Minister has given no indication whether the police have the intention, or, indeed, the provision, to purchase the equipment necessary to carry out those tests. Nor has she said that specific facilities or suites will be made available for them. She will therefore have to rely entirely on the national health service and/or the private sector. If I remember correctly, her response this morning was that the costs will be negligible. I do not see general practices responding in that fashion to the sort of costs involved. GPs in Chesham and Amersham provide a tremendous service, and our primary care trust tries its very best, but they are all under a great deal of pressure. Indeed, my constituents have to travel some distance to avail themselves of X-ray facilities. 
The cost of the facilities is a moveable feast. However, while we were at lunch I unearthed a tariff of costs, and I need the Minister to respond to me in  writing—I shall withdraw the amendment—setting out what tests she will require the police to request from the national health service or a private facility. 
The radiology tariff from the Department of Health for 2004-05 can vary. I am afraid that the information is slightly outwith the amounts given by the estimable lady veterinarian wife of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), but some of them could be the same price as a vet's X-ray. On the list is something with a specialty code RBA1, in band A, which costs £17. Ultrasounds start from £31 and go to £36, £69 and as much as £113.

Caroline Flint: I, too, have done some research over lunch, and it is important to put the issue in context. We anticipate about 100 extended detentions per annum. On the assumption that 50 per cent. of those have an associated X-ray, costing, to use a rough figure based on internet research, £50 each, and that 10 per cent. have an ultrasound scan—a private ultrasound scan for a pregnant woman is reported to be £170; we managed to get that figure together over lunch—we are talking about a total cost per annum of something like £7,000.
My argument has been, first, that there is a deterrent factor to the provision, and that the process will not get as far as the X-ray because people will know that the game is up and that they should plead guilty; and, secondly, that only a small number of people are involved. As to how the police in Greater Manchester work, they currently use accident and emergency departments—

Roger Gale: Order. I remind the Minister that this is an intervention and not a speech.

Caroline Flint: Sorry, Mr. Gale. I hope that the information that I have provided gives the hon. Lady a better context for the operation of the clause, and I hope that she agrees that there will not be an unusual, unexpected or disproportionate impact on the national health service.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful that the Minister has done some extra research. I am sorry that we have had to drag it from her, kicking and screaming, over a lunch break. I hope that her estimates are right, because the other information that I dug up over lunch was from a reply to a written question of 7 May 2003, about the assessment that is made of current waiting times for X-ray tests and ultrasound scans. The reply was that data are not collected. However, it continued:
 ''The length of time that a patient may have to wait for any scan is dependent on their clinical condition. Emergency cases need to be seen immediately.'' 
We can all agree on that. The reply added: 
 ''Other cases will be carried out as quickly as possible, dependent on the clinical priority of all patients waiting to be scanned.—[Official Report, House of Commons, 7 May 2003; Vol. 404, c. 764W.] 
It follows, to go back to the debate that we had about timing, that there may be a very long wait in a public facility for a test. 
Will the Minister write to all the members of the Committee and let us know the details of the results from the efforts made by the Manchester police? Also, further down the line, will she provide a firmer, technical explanation of exactly what X-ray or scan will be required? She mentioned a cost of £170 for a private, ultrasound scan for a pregnant lady. Of course, that could involve a full body scan, not just a lower abdominal scan, because where the body needs to be scanned and where the package may have lodged itself depend on how long has elapsed from the alleged swallowing of the class A drugs. I would like further and better details. It follows that only an abdominal scan will be needed, but that the whole alimentary canal will have to be X-rayed or scanned. That will take longer; there is more to it. It may cost more and the Minister may have underestimated the costs, even if she has not underestimated the numbers. It would be better if, rather than taking inspiration from another place, she could write to the Committee and explain the technical details. I will give way so that she can agree that she will—but she is not going to. We will all note that the technical details were not available on this clause, and I fall back on the inference that it was put together in rather a hurry. That seems increasingly to be the case with the Bill, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Brian Iddon: I listened carefully to the debate on the amendment, which was quite lengthy, and rightly so. However, it did not address the real problem of swallowers. My hon. Friend the Minister said that the numbers are relatively small, at least in urban and rural areas, but my main concern is what happens at airports. I have studied that in a little detail.
We did not have much of a cocaine problem in Manchester until flights started to come direct from the Caribbean rim a few years ago. The cocaine problem then started to get worse. I suspect that there is a change of fashion in the north from heroin to cocaine, but we have certainly not had the terrible experience that London and some other cities and towns have had, mainly in the south. The police fear cocaine far more than heroin: although both are addictive and equally evil, cocaine makes people aggressive, whereas heroin has the opposite effect. The police do not like to deal with people on cocaine, because they can be horrific to deal with, particularly  if they have just snorted or smoked it. We now have the problem in Manchester because of direct flights from places such as Kingston. 
A few years ago, I was on the police parliamentary scheme with the Greater Manchester police force, and one of our visits was to the Netherlands. We spent a whole day at Schiphol airport, and I thought that we should certainly do what was done there at Heathrow and Manchester, if not at some other international airports. The problem with British airports dealing with swallowers is that so many security forces are built into silos. At Manchester airport, we have the local police—the Greater Manchester force—special branch, who do not take a high profile, for obvious reasons, individual security companies working for baggage handlers and airlines, and Customs and Excise. 
Many years ago Holland realised that such silos were not working effectively together. An important report on that was made to the British Government. Forgive me, but I have forgotten the name of it, but I referred to it on the Floor of the House a couple of years ago. It suggested that the silos be merged. The Netherlands gives one force the total right to police all ports of entry and leaving.

Roger Gale: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I have looked very carefully at clause 5 and it does not deal with the matters to which he is addressing himself. It deals with X-rays and ultrasound scans. I appreciate that a little background may be in order, but try as I may I am finding it increasingly hard to determine that he is in order.

Brian Iddon: I will try to focus on the main point, which is about swallowers coming into airports. I am willing to be corrected, but as I understand it, the clause gives police at airports and in urban and rural areas the right to subject people they suspect of swallowing hard drugs—class A drugs—to X-rays and scanning. My point is that the biggest problem is at our airports, whether it be at Heathrow or Manchester.
I was trying to describe what happens in the Netherlands, and I shall finish talking about the position there. One police force deals with all swallowers coming into airports, and it has a tremendous set-up. If the Minister has not visited Schiphol, I strongly recommend that she spend two or three hours there seeing how the force deals with swallowers. 
The last amendment dealt with purpose-built facilities, but most airports already have, or are building, special medical facilities. People come off planes with all kinds of medical problems, and the medical facilities at a large international airport such as Heathrow may already have X-ray equipment, so it would not always be necessary to take a swallower to the local accident and emergency unit. 
The real reason why I support the clause, which gives the police extra powers, is that people die transporting drugs into Britain. In the Antilles, a former Dutch colony, children as young as 12 spend  hours trying to swallow the largest grapes that they can collect. Then, of course, they are introduced to swallowing the real thing—condoms packed hard with cocaine, which are mightily difficult to get down. Of course, flights are profiled, and someone looks at who buys tickets, who gets on the plane and how passengers behave on board. If passengers do not eat or drink on the plane, they will obviously be under suspicion immediately because they may be worried about passing the balls of cocaine. Indeed, they sometimes do, and a hell of a smell develops in the cabin. There are many ways of dealing with those people, and highly profiled passengers—those picked out before boarding the aircraft or on arrival—who get off planes at international airports such as Heathrow or Manchester will be observed, taken away, searched and interviewed. The trouble is that they have to be kept in cells for an awfully long time before the evidence can be collected. 
Sometimes, packages burst on the aircraft, and those carrying them die; indeed, quite a number of mules die. The Dutch told us that they had caught 14 mules on one plane from Kingston, Jamaica. They probably did not get all the swallowers on the plane, because international flights from the Caribbean rim are being swamped, and that is the main way of getting cocaine into Britain.

Cheryl Gillan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem affects women in particular? The largest proportion of female foreign nationals in our prisons is from Jamaica. The majority received custodial sentences after they were used as mules.

Roger Gale: Order. I am sorry to spoil this party, but the clause has nothing whatever to do with the matters that are being discussed; it is specifically about the technicalities of X-rays and ultrasound scans. Can we please return to the matters in the clause?

Brian Iddon: I take your second indication that I should focus on the subject, Mr. Gale, but it is important to point out that people die after swallowing balls of cocaine. The clause is about diagnosing mules when they arrive at airports, and that is why I support it. People sometimes arrive in great pain as a result of having swallowed drugs, and many subsequently die. The Dutch police told us that they had found butchered bodies in harbours because the security forces had failed to catch people coming off a plane. When they died, their bodies were butchered to get the drugs out. I am trying to show the Committee that the clause is amazingly important and that it may well save lives. That is why I support it. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Gale.

John Mann: I intend to ask the Minister two specific questions about subsection (1)(a) and one about subsection (2).
My question about subsection (2) relates to ion scanners. Although I support the clause, the problem of people swallowing drugs when they think they may be arrested is small. My police have a bigger problem  with flushers: those who flush drugs down the toilet. That is a common problem. On drugs raids, the first thing that the police do—I have witnessed this on several occasions—is head for the toilet to ensure that drugs are not flushed down it. The clause does not attempt to deal with that problem. 
I move on to our successes. We lead the world with our technology for scanning for drugs. We supplied the equipment used in Jamaica, where every suspected cocaine-swallower leaving the country must go through ion scanners, which are supervised by British Customs and Excise staff. Are those scanners defined as X-ray equipment in this context? 
Are the Government succeeding in their strategy on this issue? Information from the Hibiscus charity in Jamaica, which the Government partly funds, is that the number of drug-swallowers exiting the Caribbean for the UK has reduced by more than half in the past few years. It seems that we lead the world in some of the technologies and methodologies that we use. Will the expertise that we have built up, particularly in the Caribbean, through Customs and Excise, have a direct impact on how the police will use their powers under the clause? Will ion scanners be classified as X-ray equipment available for police use?

Caroline Flint: There are important issues relating to people who are manipulated to act as mules or who feel that that is the only option available to them because of poverty or other reasons, but the clause is designed to address intent to supply.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) says, it is of concern that people try to dispose of drugs by swallowing them. Drug squad officers from Doncaster have told me of an occasion on which they had a house under surveillance where they knew that supply offences were taking place. They wanted to raid the property and catch the suspect—he was known to them and had been under surveillance—with drugs on him that he was going to use for supply offences. The police have become wised up to such operations, and have, on occasion, had officers not only going into the house, but checking the down pipes from toilets to ensure that they get to the drugs before they disappear. However, because the police have become much better at those sorts of raids, and are better about searching places where drugs might have been disposed of, such as rooftops and back gardens, some dealers are swallowing. 
That brings us back to the debate about getting a person's consent to X-ray or scan, and the fact that an inference can be made in court if they refuse. As I said, the person might have a legitimate reason for not having an X-ray or scan. The measure primarily concerns that situation, rather than that of people being used as mules. 
As my hon. Friends the hon. Members for Bassetlaw and for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) said, there has been tremendous success in Jamaica, where technology has reduced numbers. We welcome the international co-operation with the Jamaican authorities on that, as we could not have done it without their support. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw is right: there has been a drop of at least  50 per cent. in the number of people coming through. That is important, because the longer these people have the drugs inside them—it is a long plane journey—the more they are at risk. I will check what my hon. Friend said about the use of ion scanners in this area. Obviously there could be a cost implication, because there are a whole number of places around the country in which someone could be arrested and charged. I will follow that up because, if there are opportunities to tackle that and identify drugs as technology advances, we should look at them. Identifying reasonable evidence of drugs is what the Bill is all about. I hope that will suffice for my hon. Friend at this point. 
I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East about police intervention. Let us not forget that people in a busy airport may not be acting as mules while still involved in the supply of drugs. Someone could be detained and arrested who swallows a drug because the concourse of the airport is their patch, where they are supplying drugs. There might be a need to follow that up. There might be occasions where an airport that already has facilities to deal with the more traditional mule route could make facilities available to the police to deal with those who engage in supply activities within the airport perimeter. I take my hon. Friend's point on that.We have had an interesting debate. The clause is about detention. It is about suspects who have tried to use every trick in the book to frustrate the police in their attempts to get evidence. If they realise, given the safeguards I have outlined, that their denial—refusing X-rays or scans—will be looked at by the courts, my hope is that the clause will not necessarily lead to a huge increase of people going for X-rays and scans. It might help to reduce the police time involved by getting people to be more up front about their offending behaviour. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - X-rays and ultrasound scans: Northern Ireland

Roger Gale: Clause 6 is a mirror of clause 5, save that it relates to Northern Ireland. Matters relating specifically to Northern Ireland are therefore in order for this debate.

Cheryl Gillan: Briefly, we again have differences, in line 18 and line 30, which refer respectively to ''superintendent'', not ''inspector'', and ''constable'' rather than ''appropriate officer''. I ask the Minister whether that is the correct terminology, in light of the requests made and points alluded to earlier.
I will touch on the reporting requirements in both clauses 5 and 6. In both territories, the Minister is requiring the annual report—under section 58 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 in this case, and under section 22 of the Police Act 1996 in clause 5, which refers to the Commissioner of the Police of the  Metropolis—to report on the total number of X-rays and ultrasound scans and their results. That will give the Minister the results she requires to find out the numbers, but it will not tell us how many individuals have been X-rayed or scanned, or both. I hope that she gives some thought to redrafting that, perhaps introducing an amendment on Report or Third Reading, to give us the number of individuals. 
The Bill allows for both ultrasound and X-ray to be carried out, but it would be interesting to see whether individuals fall foul of the provisions repeatedly. We will also need to see whether people elude the scans because they have not swallowed, but are then arrested in another situation. More qualitative information within the reporting requirements would help us to understand what is happening in that area of drug taking and dealing.

Caroline Flint: As I said earlier, we discussed clause 6 with the Northern Ireland Office. It provides for X-rays and ultrasound scans in Northern Ireland, as clause 5 does for England and Wales. I mentioned also that in Northern Ireland, authorisation is to be given at the rank of superintendent, which reflects the difference between England and Wales and Northern Ireland, which has, historically, had higher-ranked authorisation procedures. However, I shall consider what has been said.

Cheryl Gillan: I am glad that the Minister is going to consider the matter. It may be that that ranking is no longer relevant at that level and that it should be lowered. That would give the police more liberty to deal with the matter, rather than restricting action to high-ranking officers.

Caroline Flint: As I said, we consulted with the Northern Ireland Office, but I am happy to double check.
In relation to the hon. Lady's point about reporting and monitoring, I cannot commit to that at this stage. The work necessary for the monitoring and accumulation of statistics could prove to be a rather bureaucratic burden in proportion to the outcome. I shall read Hansard, but I think that we should consider what is proportionate. 
I hope that in some circumstances the powers in the Bill will lead people charged with supply offences not to prevaricate, but to realise that the court will draw inferences from their choice not to have an X-ray or scan. I hope that that will put an end to some of the problems that the police have had. The number of X-rays and scans might not relate directly to the number of successful prosecutions of individuals for supply. I am interested in considering the number of convictions for supply offences in relation to the whole basket of drug offences. That would be worth while, but I am not sure that adding more data would do what the hon. Lady would like it to do.

Cheryl Gillan: I appreciate that the Minister wants to consider supply offences, particularly in view of the statistics that I quoted in Committee last Thursday.  However, if she is going to reconsider the matter, may I ask her to think about location? Where will the X-rays and ultrasound scans take place? It would be good to know if a large number were in and around Manchester airport. Certainly there would be information on which police forces were using the powers and where in the country the incidence was highest.

Caroline Flint: Again, I have to say that part of the object is to give the police the power to get on with their job. Current custom and practice vary from one force area to another. Every day, police officers have, for one reason or another, and in one way or another, to take prisoners to hospital for medical procedures. It is not necessarily a good use of time either for the police to fill in charts to tell us where they are going and how much they use different places, or for the civil service to monitor them. We provide guidance—in consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers and others—as to how they should go about operational matters, but the procedures should take place under the law. I am a bit concerned about overburdening either civil servants at the centre of government or police forces on the ground with too much reporting.

Cheryl Gillan: I am not sure that the burden would fall on the police force, even though a record would be made in the police report. The national health service will have to log every X-ray and every scan, so the information will exist in NHS records.

Caroline Flint: I understand that we are talking about information to do with the total number of X-rays, but every time something is added, that is another a piece of information that must ultimately be provided. Hypothetically, if the police have to report back every time they use the X-ray and scan in a hospital, someone somewhere—the police or a combination of the police and the hospital—will have to fill in a form or put the information into a computer, so that it can be pulled back to the centre.
The question is: for what purpose will that information be used? I resist the proposal to add more bits of information, because I am not sure what they would tell us at the end of the day or whether it would help us in what we are trying to do, which is more effectively to provide the evidential base for convicting people of supply offences. 
We have had a wide-ranging discussion on the clause. Before I tempt the hon. Lady to her feet again, I shall resume my seat. I hope that the Committee can move forward and accept the clause.

Roger Gale: I was, of course, assuming that all hospitals referred to were hospitals in Northern Ireland.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 - Testing for presence of class A drugs

John Mann: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in clause 7, page 8, line 34, after 'A', insert 'or class B'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 19, in clause 7, page 9, line 3, after 'A', insert 'or class B'.

John Mann: The amendment probes the Minister on whether the Bill will cover amphetamines-type drugs. If it will, why do we need a class B at all? If amphetamines are not covered, however, that is a serious omission.
Amphetamines, particularly methamphetamines, are an increasing problem across the world. Taken orally and by injection, they are a problem in my area, particularly among a small group of women who are long-standing users. However, this country does not yet have the problems of south-east Asia and Australasia, where over the past three years— 
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
On resuming—

John Mann: The Minister should reflect on whether the powers that the police require for dealing with amphetamine-type drugs will be unnecessarily hindered. Drug testing in police custody suites is a welcome move by the Home Office; I believe that Nottinghamshire is the only police authority that tests for drugs at all its police stations. The ability to monitor what offenders are taking is proving to be extremely valuable and will become more so over time because it allows us to determine trends of offending and reoffending and the types and combinations of drugs being used. Such data are valuable to the police, to the health services and to us as legislators. Restricting testing under the Bill simply to class A drugs will at some stage require amendment.
I shall repeat examples that I cited earlier. South-east Asia is the best example, but more relevant is the growth in synthetic drugs in eastern Europe, which are—I hesitate to use the term mushrooming—increasingly prevalent. Their increase in supply is quite dramatic, as are the associated problems, but the easiest examples to consider are Australia and New Zealand, where amphetamine-type drugs have become the problematic drugs of choice. They are the ones in which the organised gangs deal, because they can literally be cooked up in the back of a van as the gangs are driving around. No one can tell whether we will have exactly the same problems. We can, however, say that Australia and New Zealand did not have that problem four years ago, but they do now. The Minister should reflect on whether the Bill is unduly restrictive, hence my suggestion that class B drugs should be included.

Cheryl Gillan: I support the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, who has put considerable thought into recommending the amendment to his Front Bench. He deployed an argument that is very much in keeping with my views on the clause—that it would be a sensible precaution to widen its provisions to cover class B drugs. After all, they are exceedingly serious, and amphetamines—speed, or uppers or whatever they are called—certainly fall within that category. Class A drugs are of course prepared for injection; the anomaly is that if the drugs of which he spoke are made to be ingested in a different form—not orally but by injection—they too will come under the class A provisions.
I encourage the Minister to think about that. I want to give her as much power as possible in the task that lies ahead, and I certainly want to give as much power as we can to the police. Rather than revisiting the legislation—although we may do so—it seems sensible to widen the provisions now. If the hon. Gentleman is inclined to put the amendment to the vote, he will have my support and probably that of my hon. Friends.

Angela Watkinson: I support the amendment, which widens the scope of clause 7 to include testing for the presence of class B drugs. As we all know, many drug users are poly-drug users, although most have a preferred drug. On the day of testing, they may have used a class A drug. Others will sometimes be class A users and sometimes class B users. Such people may have taken a drug that does not fall under the clause and may therefore not be caught by its provisions.
If we assume that the purpose of drugs legislation is not only to deal with trafficking and dealing, and as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw said, the collection of data, but to direct drug users into treatment, then missing someone under the provisions of the clause who takes class B drugs may mean missing an opportunity to direct that person to treatment. The policy of focusing entirely on class A drugs is misguided. I know that one reason for it is the enormous amount of police time that was used in dealing with class B drug offences, but we do not want policy to be founded on expediency rather than advisability. 
If cannabis is reclassified as a class B drug, which I feel it should be, it would be captured by the clause, should the amendment be accepted. That would give us an opportunity to divert large number of people from their drug-taking habits before they acquired the habit for class A drug or harder drugs. 
For those reasons, I support the widening of the provisions of the clause to include class B drugs.

Brian Iddon: I oppose the amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw has great knowledge of drug misuse, and I understand that he is trying to simplify the law by making the three classifications simpler. The problem is that most drugs in classes B and C, with the possible exception of cannabis, are medicines. I do not want to increase the penalty for people who are accidentally caught in a positive drugs test.
The Runciman committee suggested that the Government keep to the classification of drugs according to the harm that they do to a human being, male or female. I think that the present classification, including the reclassification of cannabis from B to C, is correct, bearing in mind what that committee thought, having taking wide evidence on the point. I shall say more about the classification of drugs when we come to the mushroom difficulty at the end of the Bill.

Caroline Flint: Some interesting points have been made and have opened up discussion about different types of drugs and their effect on people. By testing on charge—of course we hope, under the Bill, to test on arrest—the Government have, with increasing success, been attempting to identify what we know about the types of drugs that lead to addiction and the huge range of acquisitive offences that are dealt with in police stations and the criminal justice system.
At the heart of our strategy is the wish to find better and quicker ways to identify a drug problem, and I shall talk more later about the relationship of class A drugs, namely heroin and crack cocaine, to crime. We want to do that not as a means to prejudice someone's trial for burglary or another crime, but to find a better way to engage them in taking up treatment, even before they reach court, and so that the treatment plan, if they take advantage of it, can follow them through the criminal justice system, whether it be into custody or a community sentence. We can thus try to stop our justice system's revolving door of people on drugs committing offences, not getting treatment and committing offences over again. 
I understand the underlying intention behind the amendments to extend the power to test people for drugs, on charge or on arrest, to include testing for class B drugs. However, there would be several implications. Drug testing is at present used as a screening tool to identify those who use specified class A drugs—heroin and crack cocaine—because research has shown a strong link between certain offences and the misuse of those drugs in the UK. That is important, because different countries have different patterns of misuse. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw will know, Australia and Asia have a big problem with amphetamines, particularly methamphetamine, which they have tried to tackle through their drug laws. 
In the UK, the link has not been shown for other class A drugs or, for that matter, for class B drugs. The NEW-ADAM survey showed that 85 per cent. of illegal income generated by arrestees is generated by users of heroin, crack and cocaine. Only 13 per cent. of illegal income is accounted for by arrestees who use only drugs other than heroin, crack and cocaine. 
Following reclassification of cannabis, most class B drug offences involve amphetamines, and the latest available data show that there are few such offences. In 2002 only 5,820 offenders were found guilty of committing amphetamine offences, from more than 110,000 drug offenders. They make up only 5 per cent. of all offenders, and the number for other class B drugs is so small that separate analysis is not carried out. Given where we are in the UK on the use of drugs, the links to crimes and the harms to individuals in society, we believe that it is unnecessary to extend the scope of drugs screening on arrest or charge to include class B drugs. The available evidence does not suggest a causal link between trivial offences and the misuse of class B drugs. There would have to be an evidential basis for such a link. Without that, it would be necessary to justify the cost of such an extension. From where we are now, the cost would be disproportionate to the benefit and could not really be justified. 
Furthermore, if no strong link is established between the taking of class B drugs on their own and the commission of crime, it would be difficult to justify the interference that such testing would entail with a person's privacy, under article 8 of the European convention on human rights, on the grounds of preventing crime. That is important, because when we introduced the powers to test on charge—we are now discussing testing on arrest—we rightly had to make a case and say why we thought that appropriate in terms of an individual's human rights. Obviously, if the situation changed, and if there was evidence of new synthetic drugs being used in the same way as heroin or crack, as my hon. Friend suggested, and there was a shift in patterns of drug use, we would, as with anything else, keep things under review, and seek to reclassify the drug in question as a class A drug or, by order, seek the House's support for an extension of the legislation. 
I understand part of my hon. Friend's desire in the amendment, but although we can consider other countries, we should recognise that situations sometimes differ and that we must deal with how things are in this country. For the reasons that I have outlined, to do with the justification for testing—an important change is being made in how such issues are tackled—and to do with the evidential basis to justify the cost, I do not think that we can accept the amendment. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to withdraw it.

John Mann: The Minister has given part of an answer, but in many ways the Government's thinking—perhaps the Home Office's thinking would be more accurate—is given away by the use of the word ''only'' with regard to the use of amphetamines. The evidence that I have seen suggests that few amphetamine users in this country use only amphetamines; we can track the users in my area, who are well known. Those people are therefore just as liable if arrested to test positive for another drug, even though amphetamines are their drug of choice and the one that creates the behaviour that leads to acquisitive crime.
That is the fundamental point about amphetamines that I think the Minister has not fully addressed. Even if the figure was only 5 per cent. and remained so—I dispute the statement that our information base says that the figure is only 5 per cent., because of the nature of testing and poly-drug use—the direct link with acquisitive crime would still demonstrably exist. That is what distinguishes amphetamines from other class B drugs and, indeed, from class A drugs such as ecstasy.

Brian Iddon: I might not have made myself completely clear. My hon. Friend is dwelling on amphetamines, but class B includes drugs such as codeine. Codeine is regularly taken by a lot of people; it is the main constituent of cough mixture, for goodness' sake. If people are being tested in police stations for hard drugs, on which we ought to be hitting down hard, as the Government are, the tests will pick up people who are on cough mixture. That would surely be a waste of resources.

John Mann: My hon. Friend points clearly to the mess that the Government inherited with drugs classification. Clearly, the idea that codeine—even when used New Zealand-style, baked and turned into morphine—should be classed with amphetamines is nonsense. However, that is an issue for another day and is not the purpose behind the amendment. Even if the figure is just 5 per cent., it seems that the causation link with acquisitive crime is sufficient to merit consideration. However, I ask the Minister to reflect on the point that the shift to amphetamines and methamphetamines came in within a mere three months in New Zealand and Australia. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
On resuming— 
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Cheryl Gillan: Clause 7 concerns testing for the presence of class A drugs. The key proposal makes a number of amendments to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to allow for the introduction of drug testing of a person for specified class A drug use  on arrest for a trigger offence, and later there is a provision to require a person with a positive test to attend an assessment by a drugs worker. However, as I understand it the provision signals a new departure: if a person over 18 is arrested and not charged, on the say-so of an officer he or she is required to undergo testing for a ''specified Class A drug''.
My first question to the Minister is, what is a specified class A drug? Why not just a class A drug? Why introduce the word ''specified'' and what is its significance? We have just had a discussion on the classification of drugs. The drugs included in class A are heroin, methadone, cocaine, ecstasy, LSD, amphetamines if prepared for injection and magic mushrooms prepared for use. Does the inclusion of ''specified'' mean that the officer has to choose one of those drugs and specify which, or does it cover all class A drugs? 
This provision would play into the point made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, although he withdrew his amendment, to try to widen the clause to catch both class A and class B drugs, because amphetamines appear in both class A and class B. Will the Minister explain the inclusion of ''specified'' and say whether she considers it necessary? It appears to be a narrowing of the provision that ties the police officer's hands behind his back rather than the wide catch-all provision that both sides of the Committee seek. 
I have been impressed by some of the organisations that have briefed us during the run-up to the Bill. I may not agree with them in many instances, but it is only fair that some of the points that they have raised with me should be raised with the Minister. It is apposite that some of the issues should be raised during a stand part debate on clause 7, to which they relate. 
I refer specifically to a briefing that I received from DrugScope, with which I know the Minister is familiar. I repeat that I do not always agree with what it has to say. On this provision, it says that it is doubtful whether the power to test on arrest rather than at charge will lead to an improvement in the number of people entering and completing treatment, because the evidence on improving responses to problem drug users at the point of arrest does not suggest that the problem is with a lack of coercive police powers to compel people into treatment. 
DrugScope goes on to ask why the emphasis is not on strengthening existing voluntary schemes, particularly the arrest referral scheme, with which the Minister will be familiar. It also asks why, rather than introducing new police powers, which are linked to criminal sanctions, those provisions cannot be extended. We all share the Minister's aspirations for getting more people into drug treatment, and we accept that that is an exceedingly difficult task, given that the lives of those people are often chaotic and not at all stable, but the arrest referral scheme is seen to have some merits. It is a voluntary scheme that aims to identify problematic users at the point of arrest and to encourage them to tackle their problem. 
Police custody staff offer the scheme, and people are assessed when they agree to participate. If they are appropriate, they are referred to services. Arrest  referral workers screened about 49,000 individuals in England and Wales between October 2000 and September 2001. More than half those individuals were voluntarily referred to specialist drug treatment services. Of those who were referred, a quarter—5,500—entered into treatment. 
The research evidence on the arrest referral suggests that the priority of a Government concerned about improving outcomes for arrestees with drug problems is not to introduce new coercive police powers. Recent research identifies the following essential ingredients for successful arrest referral work: a proactive mode of work that wins the respect and trust of users; adequate resourcing; the capacity to provide continuing support, which is exceedingly important when dealing with such a group of offenders; and appropriate and adequately resourced treatment services to which to refer individuals, which I am afraid are in short supply. 
Turning Point and DrugScope, both of which have provided briefings, believe that the Government should use this opportunity to introduce several practical improvements to the existing arrest referral schemes in order to deliver enhanced arrest referral and to encourage people to enter treatment voluntarily. They suggest the following modifications: the provision of pre-booked appointments for treatment; accompanying clients to appointments; assertive outreach following non-attendance; follow-up contact; special arrangements for particularly vulnerable clients; and the provision of further training for workers on issues such as prostitution and stimulant and alcohol use, all of which are relevant when dealing with this particular group of people. I do not know whether the Minister is particularly familiar with those suggestions, but perhaps she will comment on them for the benefit of the Committee. Turning Point and DrugScope believe that those measures would be more effective and would actively support people in attending drug treatment centres voluntarily. I hasten to add that I do not necessarily agree with those provisions, but I am interested in the Minister's response. To be fair, I do like to know the Government's position when I am briefed by an organisation. 
DrugScope has other concerns about clause 7. It believes that there needs to be clarification of the status of the test sample and how the information derived from the results of the test is used. It wants assurances that information from test results is handled sensitively and used only to inform a course of treatment, rather than to influence criminal proceedings, where it has no bearing on the crime and does not relate to problematic behaviours. I am interested to know what the Government have to say about the test results and whether they will be used as additional evidence in support of offences for which the person has been arrested. 
DrugScope is also concerned that the process and results of testing on arrest could be used oppressively in an interrogation and related processes at a police station. Again, it seeks assurances that appropriate guidance, safeguards and monitoring will be put in place to ensure that these powers are not misused. I  agree with the organisation that the method of recording the results and the length of time for which they are retained are also important. It believes that that is particularly important if the charges are dropped for the crime for which the individual was arrested. It is not clear what happens if someone is arrested and tests positive for class A drug use, but is not charged. Is that person still bound to attend assessments and to face criminal penalties if he does not? 
I have other queries in that regard but that is enough for the Minister to deal with for the time being. I welcome the provision, but would like to know how she would deal with its critics.

Alistair Carmichael: Like the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, I have had the benefit of briefings from various bodies, including DrugScope, to which she referred, and Transform. They have raised in my mind a number of issues on which I remain uneasy. In considering my position on the clause, I have had regard not just to the Bill but to the accompanying regulatory impact assessment. In a number of respects, the RIA is a little long on assertion and a little short on evidential support for those assertions.
We should all focus on maximising the number of people who enter and complete a treatment programme. That raises a fundamental question about the appropriateness of using coercion by the police at the point of arrest. We are dealing with people whose lives are among the most chaotic of those with which the police will deal, and people whose relationship with the police is among the poorest. I question whether it is appropriate for that to be their entry point into drugs treatment. I say that because the old adage is that one can take a horse to water but cannot make it drink. It seems that the Government's aim is to take the horse to water, and then to stuff its head in the river regardless of the consequences. I am not persuaded that they are going to achieve their ends. 
The RIA makes an interesting assertion when it says that 
 ''Refusal and breaches will be kept to a maximum of no more than 5 per cent. by ensuring that the police and the drug workers at all stages of the process are fully able to explain not only the requirements but more importantly the benefits of complying with the requirements, which are not onerous—'' 
That is certainly open to question— 
''and putting in place processes, which will make it easier for the drug misuser to comply with the requirements.'' 
If we consider the life patterns that have brought many of the people to the point that we are considering, I have to suggest to the Minister that that assertion is optimistic in the extreme. The Transform briefing also questions the figure of 5 per cent. It points out, quite reasonably, that 
 ''Experience with drug treatment and testing orders, court ordered treatment and treatment as a bail condition suggests that a substantial minority, often as high as 25 per cent. of arrestees, will choose to go to prison, where they can invariably maintain their drug habit, than enter coerced abstinence-based treatment. These will inevitably be the most problematic and chaotic users and the most prolific offenders. A recent NAO report on Drug Treatment and Testing Orders found that 80 per cent. of those on the Order had re-offended within 2 years.'' 
That is hardly a promising background for the measures that the Government seek to introduce. 
A number of practical issues need to be addressed. I should like the Minister to go into some detail on the methodological and legal problems, and the history of false positives and false negatives, particularly in relation to class A drugs. The example that Transform cites is old, but one that I suspect remains true: that of those who test positive for class A because they have had something as innocent as a poppy seed bagel. There are other issues of greater concern. As the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham has implied, there are legal issues concerning the possible use of the results of these tests when people are in custody, and what happens to the samples once the initial decision has been taken. 
I would also be interested in the Minister's explanation for the basis on which she sees this as being a deterrent, either for drug use or drug-related offending. This has become a theme throughout the regulatory impact assessment, but its extent is not quantified anywhere in the assessment. What research has been, or will be, undertaken to establish the deterrent effect, if this is to come into law? The Home Office has never undertaken or presented any evidence to demonstrate the deterrent effect at the heart of this Bill. Such an effect seems to be marginal, and almost completely irrelevant to the chaotic lives of many drugs users. That is surely the point. The people with whom we are dealing will not see this in the same way that we, sitting here in this Committee Room, would see it. They are not impressed by the deterrent value in the way that we might be. Surely it is the offenders who have the most involved history, the most chaotic lives, who commit the most crime, that we ought to be striking at here. I suggest to the Minister that this clause quite simply fails to do that. 
Finally, I come to a point made by Transform, which is slightly tangential to the clause, but fair none the less. To look at treatment purely in criminal justice terms, if we are to put treatment at the heart of our policy, we have to regard that as being a health issue as well. Why do we therefore have no measure at all of the health benefit to be had from this?

Brian Iddon: I have a slight concern about false positives. The all-party group on drugs misuse, of which I am the chairman, performed quite a detailed inquiry—followed up by DrugScope in a more detailed response—on testing of drugs. One of our conclusions was that the drug testing industry is totally unregulated. I am not saying that all firms that the police and others use are cowboys—far from it. Nevertheless, some are. Has the Minister, or her Department, given any consideration to regulating this industry? After all, it is a growth industry and this Bill will help to achieve that.
False positives can come about in other ways. I am concerned, for example, for those suffering chronic pain, particularly the pain that cancer produces. My wife had a dear friend, whom we have now sadly lost,  who had to take morphine for a long time. She led a normal life, shopping, going out to the cinema and so on. She was on morphine for more than two years towards the end of her life, to kill the terrible pain. That was, of course, legally prescribed. I do not know whether the Committee is aware of this, but when heroin gets into the body it undergoes a chemical reaction called deacetylation, and is turned into morphine. People who are legally on morphine could be—if, of course, they have committed a trigger offence, or an offence covered by new subsection (1A) (b) in subsection (3)—picked up by testing in the police station. These people are already very ill, and I am a little concerned about the humiliation that these people may suffer in police stations as a result of taking legal morphine.

Angela Watkinson: If someone were taking morphine as a prescribed drug, they would be able to show evidence of that.

Brian Iddon: That is true, and I hope that that would happen in 100 per cent. of cases, but I fear that some such people will leak through the system in some police stations, and I would not want them to be caught by the drug-testing procedures being introduced. I hope that the police will be sensible, and that people will be able to produce prescriptions; of course, a call to the doctor would relieve them of that humiliation.

Cheryl Gillan: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's assertion. I do not believe that any police constable faced with somebody who says that they take morphine to dampen their pain due to cancer would not make every effort to substantiate that, or would not accompany that person home so that they could show that they have the appropriate prescription. I hope that his fears are completely unfounded.

Brian Iddon: I hope so too; I merely point out that false positives could arise in those two ways. I am particularly concerned about regulation of the industry.

Caroline Flint: I will try to answer the pertinent and interesting questions that have been raised. If I forget anything, I will try to take interventions.
The content of the clause is not new. We already have testing on charge in a number of our police stations. There was much debate about that, but the reason behind it was the huge number of people with drug-addiction problems who commit criminal offences. The present arrangements do not excuse someone from having committed an offence: due process will be followed and they will have to go to court. Regardless of the comments made about the concerns of DrugScope and Turning Point, with which we have a good relationship, there is a general welcome by those who have worked with drug addicts for years to the fact that we are finally trying to address the problem of people who fuel their drug habit through criminal acquisitive offences. There is a range of trigger offences.

Cheryl Gillan: Will the Minister clarify that? Will police officers have to nominate which class A drug they are testing for, or will it be for all class A drugs, in which case why is the word ''specified'' used?

Caroline Flint: As I said, heroin and crack cocaine are the specified class A drugs for which people are tested upon charge. All that we are doing is moving the testing process for those drugs to arrest stage instead of charge stage. In that respect, there is no change. As I said in the previous debate, those drugs are specified because of the NEW-ADAM survey, which examined the illegal income of arrestees, and found that 85 per cent. was generated by users of heroin and crack cocaine. I do not want to revisit that argument.
We are not doing anything different, except to move the bar to arrest stage. Generally, there has been agreement with what we are doing at charge stage, so why are we moving it to arrest stage? Through testing on charge, we have had the opportunity to monitor and consider the practice and impact of arresting on charge. 
First, it has proved the initial point about drugs being linked to certain groups of crime. Secondly, it has indicated what we already knew from other evidence—it has been backed up by the implementation of those procedures—that large numbers of people have a class A drugs problem as specified by statutory instrument under the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. Thirdly, as my hon. Friend rightly said, DrugScope, Turning Point and Transform have pointed out that it is also to do with the process of engagement with individuals. I absolutely agree: testing is one part of the process, but the engagement of individuals is also important. 
I wish now to address a couple of other matters. One of the issues raised by the police and arrest referral workers now working in that field—it has been referred to by a number of hon. Members—is that individuals who are seriously addicted to drugs are often chaotic in their use of drugs, which creates all sorts of problems in the custody suite at the police station. 
One of the problems is that hours can often be lost when waiting to test on charge. The police and arrest referral workers both say that if they could test earlier they could start engaging the person earlier. That is particularly true of heroin addicts. When they are arrested, the police feel that they should be tested in order to ascertain whether there is a link between the  drug and the reason for the arrest; they want to engage the addicts in such a way that they can tell the addicts what is available. 
Although more needs to be done, I am pleased to say that the growth in access to rapid prescribing in our drug intervention programmes has been a huge success. In the past 18 months, the waiting times came down, and in some places the turnaround time for that group is very quick. That is important, because we must find a way to capture such people's attention. We need to tell them that they can have a substitute and therefore do not need to leave the police station to get on the street for the next fix.

John Mann: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for giving way. I have been waiting for an opportunity to intervene, but I did not want knock her out of her stride on such an important point.
One specific point arising from what she said is vital—the specifying of class A drugs. One important piece of the analysis required is on diversion—for example, of methadone. The only real way to ascertain whether there is an increase in diversion is through the evidence of drugs testing. Is the Minister saying that methadone would not be specified and thus tested for? Such information, which would be used for different purposes from information on heroin and crack cocaine, could be provided to the health service and others involved in the criminal justice system in order to see whether the particular substitution being used is being diverted.

Caroline Flint: I shall check on that, and come back to my hon. Friend either today or later. I understand the point, though. Another side to testing is intelligence—that is, general intelligence, not to be used against specific individuals, about the usage of such drugs. If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I will return to the matter later.
We have been told about the need to build in more time to allow for effective engagement with individuals, and the provision would allow that. We know from what is happening in drug intervention programmes that many who are arrested and then charged are found to test positive for those drugs. That strategy and that process were approved in principle in the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000, but by making the present change through primary legislation, we hope to ensure that appropriate amendments can be made—for example, on the duties and responsibilities of the custody officer before charge.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister says that the priority is engagement, and in that she is absolutely right. She made an interesting case for bringing forward the point of testing, but that would introduce an element of coercion. How does she think that will improve engagement?

Caroline Flint: I will deal with that point, but I want first to deal with the several points raised about testing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me. When I have dealt with them, I shall go on to the next stage—the mandatory assessment that he referred to.
One question, properly raised, was about the handling of the test sample, about the need to protect the individual and ensuring that samples are not used as evidence in relation to the offence that has been committed. In line with current legislation, the test result may be disclosed in order to inform decisions about bail in criminal proceedings, to inform decisions about the supervision of the individual, to inform court decisions as to the appropriate sentence—that would obviously include drug treatment—and for the purpose of ensuring that appropriate treatment and advice are available. The police will be able to use the test result to inform decisions on police bail. The new provision will additionally allow for information taken from the sample to be disclosed in order to inform decisions about attaching conditions to conditional cautions and for the purpose of requiring an initial assessment and a follow-up assessment. 
I accept that there are elements of carrot and stick in trying to get people to engage with treatment. In response, I shall say a little about the drug intervention programme, the difference that it has made for those who have moved on to the assessment process and how the numbers taking treatment have risen. Test results are recorded on police and court files. The practice of keeping and destroying records varies, but police files in general are kept for seven years, then destroyed. For trigger offences, court files are destroyed in the following circumstances: in the case of acquittal, 12 months after the date of acquittal; in the case of conviction, 12 months after completion of the sentence. Those are important safeguards. 
Two points were raised. The first was whether test results could be used in interviews in relation to the offence for which the person had been arrested or subsequently charged. I understand that that would not be an appropriate use of the information. The second question was whether the information could be used in a court hearing. Yes, it would be right and proper, in connection with the offence, for such information to be used in court. However, it is also right and proper, as it is now under the charging process, that when considering bail or when sentencing, the fact that a person is undergoing an assessment or seeing a drug programme worker should be taken into consideration. 
We are trying—in many areas, we are succeeding more than ever before—to create a situation in which more people are presenting themselves for treatment. I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about the nature of the risks involved, and the problems of people going for treatment and failing and so on, but measures to harness treatment and offer something of quality will give people an incentive in terms of their final sentence and represent a step change. We are already seeing results in the increasing numbers of people going into treatment. They are also staying there much longer than in the past.

Alistair Carmichael: On that last point, these welcome improvements are made under a voluntary scheme. Does the Minister anticipate that the positive result would be added to the data on that person held on the police national computer? Would that not be a further source of concern in the situation outlined by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East in relation to people who, for innocent reasons, might give a positive test?

Caroline Flint: I was coming to the issue of false negatives and false positives. I will come back to mandatory assessment too, but I should first like to deal with some of the other points that have been raised.
I was asked where the 5 per cent. figure in the regulatory impact assessment came from. The breach rate for restriction on bail and for assessment is about 10 per cent., and it is about 1 per cent. for refusal of testing on charge. That gives some indication that the number of people refusing is perhaps not as high as some might think. The aim of the assessment clauses is to get as many drug misusers as possible into treatment, and not to prosecute them. Given that some drug misusers refuse to engage with us whatever we do, we estimate that the breach rate for testing on arrest and for assessment will be up to 5 per cent. We hope that the figure will be much lower as large numbers have not so far refused to take part. 
I was asked about false negatives and false positives. Clause 16 answers some of those questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East said that someone arrested for an acquisitive offence who found themselves testing positive might have a reasonable excuse. I hope that they would provide that information to the police officer so that the matter could be sorted out. No one wants to waste time if someone is on prescription drugs. The provision is not about testing anybody who is arrested, but is linked to acquisitive offences. 
Anyone who believes a positive drug test to be false can ask for the test to be sent for further analysis by the Forensic Science Service. We are also ensuring in guidance that any assessment requirement under part 3 will be arranged after the further analysis is received. If the test proves negative, the requirement will cease. That builds in provision for a situation in which the result is unclear and the person is unhappy about it. Everything would be delayed until the more detailed analysis came back from the FSS. I hope that answers hon. Members' questions. I may have to seek advice if there are further points.

Alistair Carmichael: I am interested by the point raised by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East and I should like to explore it in a slightly different scenario. Let us imagine that we are dealing with someone who has a history of drug misuse and acquisitive crime, which often go together, but who had been free from drugs for five years or so and then found himself in the situation described by the hon. Gentleman. How much of a fair hearing from an open mind does the Minister think someone in such a situation would get when they tested positive?

Caroline Flint: It is rather hard to answer that question. The police will obviously deal with situations at their discretion at any time. The issue is that people have committed an offence and will be tested. I do not know if I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly, but unless he wants to repeat what he said, I will check Hansard to see whether we are missing out anything that he said.
Earlier, I mentioned the refusals that we have seen through the drug intervention programme and the criminal justice intervention programme, and how those have worked in practice. I have been to a number of custody suites and seen the whole process in action, and I have been reassured by the police focus and what they are trying to achieve in terms of the connection with the specified drugs, and by the way in which they have handled the process. Other people—not only police officers but arrest referral workers or even detention officers in the custody suites—may carry out the drug test, and I probably have not recognised that. 
My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw raised a point about methadone. We do not test for methadone, and nor does the test detect it. Although I understand his point about the misuse of prescribed methadone and how it may be used on our streets—issues of how prescribing takes place and shared care are very important—the link between crime and the misuse of methadone is not felt to be based on evidence. It is usually the case that a person is addicted to heroin, so might be using methadone then topping up on heroin, or something like that. However, if the problem that he raised comes up, methadone could be specified in a statutory instrument under the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, and we will keep the matter under review. Again, I will read Hansard and look into that issue.

John Mann: I am not suggesting that there is a problem, but lots of people do. Statistics are collated not through testing, but based on voluntary information provided by the person on arrest. It is already possible to do an analysis over a period of time to see whether there is a trend. In my own area, there is no trend of an increase in methadone diversion. However, with officially prescribed substitute drugs—both buprenorphine and methadone—it would be useful to have such testing available both as evidence of the effectiveness of the drugs treatment and for the NHS and others to be able to see who is diverting and on what basis. Not to have such powers is rather a weakness, albeit a small one, in our system. Consideration ought to be given to it and, in particular, legislation should not debar.

Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. One of the matters that I will consider is the information that people provide over and above what they have been tested for. I will consider that issue, but I do not necessarily think that we have to deal with it in the Bill. I will have a look at what happens with the intelligence on what drugs are used, perhaps relating to my hon. Friend's earlier point about what other substances are used by people who use heroin or crack cocaine. As well as helping the individual, we are  trying to get a better fix—for want of a better word—on what is happening in local drug markets and in supply and, even if we use information other than testing, on what drugs are becoming part of the local scene.

Angela Watkinson: Methadone is certainly an addictive drug. Could the Minister say how it would be classified were it not prescribed?

Caroline Flint: I do not want to be diverted into that area. We are talking about the testing on arrest at this stage. We could have a big discussion about all sorts of drugs, but these are obviously all controlled substances. Therefore their use is restricted, and there are clear arrangements about how they should be prescribed.
I agree with the hon. Lady in one sense: methadone is a very serious drug, and must be handled properly and in a way which, where it is used as a substitute, minimises the risk of people using other drugs on top of it, possibly leading to a fatality. It must also be managed and used so that it does not turn up on our streets for other people to use. 
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East raised the issue of accreditation. The Home Office approves the equipment to be used by the police for drug testing within the drug intervention programme areas. The approval process is subject to a competitive tender, where the successful equipment supplier is required to comply with a rigorous specification and undergo extensive laboratory testing. The specification and the voluntary testing are devised and undertaken by expert forensic advisers to the Home Office. Obviously, this should not be confused with workplace or school drug testing. That is not an area that we feel that we have responsibility for. But my hon. Friend raises some important points about expansion. Schools or employers wanting to go down this route should think about the type of kit they might be using, how it would be used, and what benchmark would be used in accreditation. 
I hope that has reassured my hon. Friend that, in terms of police testing, we think that it is very important that it is accredited and approved by the Home Office. It is not just left up to police forces to pick something off the shelf. Another reason for that is that we are putting a huge amount of funding into this programme, and we want to ensure consistency in quality of approach throughout the police forces currently operating within it, and as it expands. A lack of consistency would affect us in all sorts of ways, not least with regards to the quality and vigour of the information we get back. 
On the issue of assessment, I have had many discussions over the last 18 months with lots of different people—from the voluntary and private sectors, within Government and the Department, users, parents, and carers—in many different parts of the country about this whole issue and the element of coercion in the whole process. Funnily enough, I have found that, in a number of areas, the general response  has overwhelmingly not been a negative one—for example, with regard to conditions on bail and the fact that we are saying that a user's participation could affect their sentence. An element of coercion has been quite helpful for many drug users in making them face up to the situation they find themselves in. Part of that is getting people in front of them who can explain to them what sort of support, and care plan, they are likely to receive. For a number of problematic drug users, it is not that they have not had treatment in the past. They have often had treatment in different forms, but it has not necessarily worked. Many of them have been in prison before. They have had detox and come out of prison, but at the end of the day there has been no throughcare and aftercare. 
Part of what we are attempting to do is demonstrate that there has been a change. There is more to be done, but the waiting time for treatment has gone down nationally, and in drug intervention programme areas it has gone down faster. The wrap-around care and support that follows people through the criminal justice system and which will follow them as they leave it, whether they have had a community-based sentence or a custodial sentence, is something the like of which we have never seen. 
When I have spoken to users or former users who have come through a drug intervention programme or for that matter been subject to a drug testing and treatment order and I have asked them about the more coercive elements, the response has been good. Sometimes they have made the point referred to by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland: that one can lead a horse to water but one cannot make it drink. I do not like to use that expression about people, but he used it and I shall too. Some users, when told, for example, that they are subject to a DTTO, have reacted in a quite hostile and negative way. At that point, when they are forced to face their situation, the quality of the engagement will make a difference to whether their mindset about the treatment will be changed. 
I met such an individual in Manchester not long ago—a real hard case who had been round the block hundreds of times, to whom, as far as he was concerned, nothing more could be offered—but I am pleased to say that after he had been involved in a programme for three months or so, his life was being turned around. That is not to say that he would not face risks and difficulties in the future, but the change was happening, and it would not have happened without a wake-up call telling him that he was going to be a part of the programme, and that whether he liked it or not he would be assessed and see someone and turn up for the appointment. 
Of course, the important thing is to develop best practice to encompass issues that the hon. Gentleman and DrugScope raised, such as attendance at appointments, and recognition of and dealing with chaotic lifestyles. However, we have reached the point at which we need the assessment to be brought closer to the test, and made part of the process. 
For a long time I have felt, having been to see testing in police stations, that the process of conducting the test, followed by the wait for the person to decide whether to see an assessment worker voluntarily, is a lost opportunity. It is right to make the mandatory assessment element part and parcel of the testing process. 
I hope that I have answered most of the questions of hon. Members and not missed anything. If, having consulted Hansard, I find I have missed something, I shall write to hon. Members as appropriate. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 - Extended detention of suspected drug offenders

Alistair Carmichael: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 10, line 42, at end add—
 'This power can only be exercised where the taking of an x-ray or the carrying out of an ultrasound scan has established the possibility of the person being detained having swallowed a substance reasonably believed to be controlled drugs.'. 
We are back to our old friends the so-called swallowers. The clause will extend from 96 to 192 hours the period for which someone who has swallowed something believed to be a controlled substance can, on application, be remanded into police custody by a magistrate. My amendment provides that that power can be exercised only when the possibility of such a substance being present had been established by X-ray or ultrasound. 
Eight days is a long time to hold someone in custody. Having given the police powers to order X-ray and ultrasound examinations, if we anticipate detention for a period of that nature that is the least that we should do. It is in everybody's interests for a person who has swallowed a substance to be scrutinised as closely as possible. The counterbalance to that is that we must first have established that there is a real prospect of there being something there. I deliberately worded the amendment to require the presence of ''controlled drugs'' rather than specifying class A or whatever. On reflection, I might have said ''a controlled drug'' rather than ''controlled drugs''. However, that is the sort of nicety that can be resolved if the Minister is minded to see the wisdom of the point.

Caroline Flint: On first reading the amendment, I thought, ''Why not accept it?'' On the face of it, 192 hours, which is about 8 days, seems like a long time to  hold somebody, and why would that power be needed to carry out an X-ray or a scan? That was my starting point. I hope that I shall be able to explain why it is necessary.
As we have discussed before, somebody who swallows drugs, suitably wrapped, upon arrest does so in order to conceal evidence and to avoid prosecution. At the moment, under PACE, a suspect can be detained for a maximum of 96 hours with charge. Apparently, that is often insufficient time for the substance to pass through the body. The record is 40 days. I do not know what the substance was—I can see the pained looks on people's faces—but it took that long or longer. We are not asking for 40 days. We spoke earlier about Manchester airport and mules. Customs officers often face similar problems in relation to people suspected of swallowing drugs in order to smuggle them into the country. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 made provision— 
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
On resuming—

Caroline Flint: The Criminal Justice Act 1988 made provision for a magistrate to commit a person charged with possession of a controlled drug or a drug trafficking offence into the custody of a customs officer for a period of up to 192 hours. Under clause 8, we are trying to give magistrates similar powers to remand a person charged to the custody of a police officer for a period of up to 192 hours to increase the likelihood of the evidence being recovered. That is an important part of the clause.
Although the amendment appears reasonable, it would limit the exercise of the power to cases in which an X-ray or ultrasound scan has established the possibility of the defendant having swallowed a substance that is reasonably believed to be a controlled drug. I do understand the desire to ensure that the power of extended detention is used only where necessary, and I would certainly expect the police to take great care when considering whether to use the new powers to seek an X-ray or ultrasound scan before deciding to seek a remand for 192 hours. 
I cannot accept the amendment, however, because it could mean that a suspect could avoid being remanded on charge to police custody simply by refusing consent to an X-ray or an ultrasound scan. In the light of our earlier discussion, the court could obviously make inferences from a refusal to consent. On the other hand, there is the question of building the case and the evidence base that the person is involved in the supply of drugs. We will know for sure that the evidence is inside them only when it comes out at the other end. 
Section 152 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 already requires a magistrate to consider whether the use of the power is appropriate. That is important, because the power is exercised by the magistrates, not police  officers, and therefore must be exercised judiciously. I would also remind hon. Members that the power cannot be used on defendants under 17 years of age. 
The power is important for dealing not only with refusals, but with X-rays or scans that are not clear and which might therefore cause problems with showing reasonable belief that a substance is there, in line with the amendment. We have sought information from customs officers. Although they said that most swallowed parcels of drugs are detected by X-ray or ultrasound, a small pellet may remain undetected. That may depend on the experience of the ultrasound or X-ray operative or on the equipment being used. 
Although there must be a procedure for the police to make a case—in this case to the courts—for using the power over and above an X-ray or scan, or when someone has refused, the police need to have the power provided for them in certain circumstances. On that basis I hope that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will withdraw the amendment.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister's point about an accused person being able to avoid the provisions by refusing is a good one and her objection is well founded on that count. However, I wonder whether it might not still be possible to make the Bill somewhat stronger. Would it be possible to make it clear to police officers, through guidance notes, for example, that in all but the most exceptional circumstances an X-ray or ultrasound scan should be carried out? We are talking about a fairly draconian power and we have already given the power of X-ray and ultrasound. Parliament is entitled to expect that power to be used unless there is a good reason why not.

Caroline Flint: I will look into the guidance. There will be issues arising in relation to the X-ray and ultrasound scan, which we discussed earlier. We will also consider how the customs model is applied, because at the end of the day a case will have to be made to a magistrates court to get permission for the additional power.

Alistair Carmichael: I am grateful to the Minister for that response, which reassures me that the line of operation that I sought to introduce in tabling the amendment would be followed in practice. What happens in practice is what concerns me most, and has done so throughout the Committee. In view of the Minister's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Cheryl Gillan: I wish to explore a few points. First, I want to ensure that the new provisions do not alter the hours that will be counted for the person who has been detained. Secondly, the Minister referred to Customs and Excise. Have there been any difficulties with Customs and Excise or lessons learned? Thirdly, if the evidence had not been recovered in 192 hours, would  it be possible to return to the magistrates court and extend the time? The Minister referred to the record as being 40 days, so would the person have to be released if their retention factor proved to be in excess of 192 hours?
Finally, I do not want to descend into lavatorial discussion, but I understand that the drugs smugglers whom Customs and Excise have to deal with have drugs wrapped in everything from condoms and balloons to the fingers of latex gloves. Suspects have to remove their clothes and put on a paper suit, which stops them hiding materials. 
The customs officers keep the suspect under constant supervision while they wait for nature to take its course, which may take several days. Eventually, the suspect has to go to the lavatory and that is usually when the swallowed packages appear. The packages are then usually washed in a small chamber used by Customs and Excise called a Frost chamber. I have pictures of the Frost chamber and, indeed, have seen it when visiting Customs and Excise facilities. I would therefore like the Minister to explain what will be available to police officers and in police cells to carry out the hazardous and unpleasant work to recover evidence after the suspect has been detained for 192 hours.

Alistair Carmichael: I congratulate the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham on the exceptionally delicate way in which she dealt with the matter. The money spent on sending her to Cheltenham Ladies college was not wasted.

Caroline Flint: The clause arose because front-line police officers said that they would find it helpful in certain circumstances to have the power that we propose. As I said, we have the customs model of how the power should be applied and we shall consider how the police will use it. A force will have to consider equipping one or more custody suites for these purposes but the proposal will not necessarily be used disproportionately. As the police will initiate the request to the magistrates, they will be able to consider the issue of control on officer time and how the process will be managed. Obviously they will have to consider special facilities which may or may not be the same as those for the customs, which has access to see-through toilets, for example.
Forces will have to think about these issues as part and parcel of their approach to tackling drug supply offenders and we will consider how to guide them on how customs use the power, which they see as very useful; they are enthusiastic about it. There will be occasions on which it will be possible to seek an extension from a magistrate, but returning to the magistrate will have to be justified. It is possible for customs to do that at present. It will be for the police, based on the guidance, to determine how they will manage and use the power as part of their general approach to tackling drug offenders.

Cheryl Gillan: Could the Minister comment on the arrangements that the police might have to consider concerning what Customs and Excise do in respect of removing garments and putting suspects into plain white suits?

Caroline Flint: I cannot answer that question now, but I shall look into it. I understand that some police forces already have certain types of equipment for the purposes that the clause tries to deal with—the passing of packages containing drugs. They also have protocols for using it, including those related to health and safety issues. There are clearly issues to consider in terms of the health risk to the detainee, which would  have to be assessed by a suitably qualified medical practitioner. I do not want to reopen the debate about hospitals, but in some cases it may result in the detainee having to be transferred to hospital, if necessary. We can draw upon the custom and practice of Customs and Excise to assist us. What is proposed is just another tool to assist the police in their work.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.] 
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Five o'clock till Thursday 3 February at ten minutes past Nine o'clock. The Committee consisted of the following Members: